As I noted in a Wednesday column, a number of reporters have recently had to revisit the most fundamental question about climate change: Is the Earth actually warming up. The book SuperFreakonomics and an article by the BBC have received widespread criticism for arguing that there is evidence we are experiencing global cooling, rather than warming.
A number of reporters have tried to explain that the relative stability of global temperature over the last ten years does not invalidate the scientific consensus that we’re headed toward a warmer world. But in my column, I lamented the fact that few have provided a nuts-and-bolts explanation of why models are better at forecasting long-term temperature trends than predicting what the temperature will in five, ten, or twenty years. It’s a complicated story that’s just too technical and dry for most daily news budgets.
So The Wall Street Journal’s Jeffrey Ball deserves credit for getting a 1,300-word story devoted to climate models’ troubles with decadal forecasting into the paper on Friday. The piece goes into some detail on why short-term projections are hampered by natural weather variability and limited data about clouds, ocean circulation patterns, and other factors that influence temperature.
Meanwhile, the debate about SuperFreaknomics goes on. This week, The Economist weighed in with an article siding with the critics. It called the book’s controversial chapter on global warming, “a distorted lens through which to view climate change,” and its focus on geo-engineering as a solution “a grave disservice” to readers.
The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart, on the other, conducted a rather servile interview with Steven Levitt, one of the book’s co-authors, on Wednesday. Stewart said he was “surprised at how angry people” were over SuperFreakonomics and that he was “sorry [Levitt had] taken so much shit for it.” He then declared his support for geo-engineering. but unlike his usual performances, Stewart clearly hadn’t done much homework on the subject and didn’t seem to have handle on what he was talking about. The Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson had a good post about why the fake news host should have paid more attention to sound criticism of SuperFreakonomics from “climate scientists, energy experts, and economists.”
Four Comments
First, part of this issue (not the whole issue) is a bit like this: It's much easier for you to predict, with some accuracy, that you will be hungry if you don't eat for a long period, than it is for you to predict precisely when, and how much, you will be hungry at every minute of the day, let alone what you'll be hungry for, i.e., candy or soda or cheese or whatever.
Second, part of this issue is "resolved" in terms of understanding if you actually have a grasp of the key causal factors. For example, those who don't know, or don't believe, that (and how) CO2 absorbs energy of certain wavelengths may be mostly dependent on these temperature data-points for their entire understanding. They may actually THINK that ALL of our understanding depends on fluctuating temperature data. If you take someone like that, and if they also don't understand statistics, then such a person is on very shaky ground to grasp much of the matter. There was a key phrase in that recent letter from scientific organizations, along the lines of "multiple independent lines of evidence". And, of course, scientific understanding includes various degrees of understanding of the causal factors.
Third, The New York Times still hasn't covered the letter from the scientific organizations, as far as I can tell.
Fourth, someone should bring Jon Stewart up-to-speed with the science of these things, so he "knows better" next time. He is great, usually, and his is a key voice. But, he can't debunk things that he doesn't begin to understand. So, someone should reach out to him to help him understand.
Be Well,
Jeff
Posted by Jeff Huggins on Fri 30 Oct 2009 at 02:39 PM
But in my column, I lamented the fact that few have provided a nuts-and-bolts explanation of why models are better at forecasting long-term temperature trends than predicting what the temperature will in five, ten, or twenty years.
No you didnt ... thats just more bullshit. You simply made the statement that long term models have shown themselves to be accurate which is demonstrably false as they have done no such thing
Posted by Mike H on Fri 30 Oct 2009 at 05:19 PM